Note 248 — Chapter IV · A CRITICISM OF THE HYPOTHESIS OF PROMISCUITY

Bachofen, ‘Das Mutterrecht,’ pp. xxi., xx., 10. Idem, ‘Antiquarische Briefe,’ pp. 20, et seq. McLennan, loc. cit. pp. 92, 95. Morgan, loc. cit. pp. 480, 487, et seq. Idem, ‘Ancient Society,’ pp. 418, 500-502. Lubbock loc. cit. pp. 86, 98, 104. Bastian, loc. cit. p. xviii. Giraud-Teulon, loc. cit. p. 70. Lippert, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 7. Post, ‘Die Geschlechtsgenossenschaft der Urzeit,’ pp. 16, et seq. Idem, ‘Die Grundlagen des Rechts,’ pp. 183, et seq. Idem, ‘Studien zur Entwickelungsgeschichte des Familienrechts,’ pp. 54, et seq. Wilken, ‘Over de primitieve vormen van het huwelijk en den oorsprong van het gezin,’ in ‘De Indische Gids,’ 1880, vol ii. p. 611. Kohler, in ‘Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft,’ vol. iv. p. 267. Engels, ‘Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des Staats,’ p. 17. Mr. Herbert Spencer, though inferring (‘The Principles of Sociology,’ vol. i. p. 635) that even in prehistoric times promiscuity was checked by the establishment of individual connections, thinks that in the earliest stages it was but in a small degree thus qualified.